gravitational / gravitational/shared-workflows
Don't unnecessarily assign additional PR reviewers
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Go
- Stars
- 7
- Forks
- 4
- Avg merge
- 19h 53m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 5
Description
Description
What happened:
I will often manually add PR reviewers before posting the PR, if they have specific knowledge/context on the work. Whether or not the PR author has manually added reviewers, the review bot will currently add 2 extra randomly-assigned reviewers.
What you expected to happen:
The reviewer bot should only assign the minimum number of randomly selected reviewers. If I have added 1 reviewer, the bot should assign only 1 more. If I have added 2 reviewers and 1 is a code owner, the bot should not assign any more.
Reproduction Steps
As minimally and precisely as possible, describe step-by-step how to reproduce the problem.
- Create a draft PR
- Manually assign 2 reviewers.
- Open the PR (convert out of draft state)
- See that the reviewer bot will randomly assign 2 more reviewers.
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by locating the reviewer bot workflow in this shared-workflows repository and reproduce the draft-to-open transition with manually assigned reviewers. Trace how the bot counts existing reviewers and code owners; the work is done when it assigns only the remaining number of random reviewers described in the issue.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- github-actions, go
- Domain
- ci-cd
- Issue type
- Bug
- Difficulty
- 3/5
- Estimated time
- 1-2 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 45/100